#no you don't engage with media critically you point at things and say That's Bad

[rustchild]

one of the biggest and most basic misunderstandings about media criticism that i see on here is people conflating media criticism with being critical about things, i.e. negative. It doesn’t. To actually engage critically with a piece of media is to apply a critical lens to it, which means that you are analyzing specific elements of that piece of media in relation to a body of existing thought. A critical reading can be feminist, postmodernist, marxist, antimarxist, queer, historical, biographical, postcolonial, etc. etc. etc. All that means is that you are looking for elements and themes that relate to a framework, and questioning how they manifest in that particular work.

Let’s say we have a movie about a group of coal miners going on strike, in which the coal miners’ wives play a relatively minor part. “I don’t like how women are portrayed in that movie” is not critical engagement. “I’m not going to watch that movie because I heard that women aren’t portrayed well” is especially not critical engagement. “That movie denies female characters their agency by having all significant plot points rest on the decisions of men, even when they’re central to the female characters’ story arcs” is a critical reading through a feminist lens. “That movie really brilliantly explores how women’s agency is thwarted by male-dominated spaces” is also a critical reading through a feminist lens! Critical readings aren’t always negative!

A marxist reading of the same set of scenes might focus on how women’s labor in the domestic sphere enables men’s labor in the professional sphere, and how both are impacted by the constraints of class. A queer reading might look at how homosocial spaces are framed, and the contrasting framing of scenes between heterosexual couples. Different lenses, applied to the same text, will bring out different elements--and none of them are necessarily contradictory, or more right than the other.

Even if you aren’t applying a specific lens intentionally, engaging with a work critically means being aware of what you’re bringing to the text. What patterns are you looking for? How are they grounded in the work itself? And a critical reading has to be grounded in the canon--your reading is as strong as your ability to find evidence that supports it. And, once you find those patterns, where do they come from? What impact do they have on you, the reader? On the text itself? How do they relate to similar works? Are they familiar? New? How might a different reading analyze the same set of ideas?

The point of a critical reading isn’t to point at problems and say “hey, that’s a problem.” It’s to gain a deeper understanding of a work by pulling out specific patterns--which, yes, might be problematic, but also might just be interesting--and contextualizing them in order to gain a deeper understanding. Reading critically doesn’t mean reading with an eye out for bad shit, it’s reading with an understanding that a work doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and actively looking for the way that ideas build over the course of the story.

#Media Literacy #this is going to drive me insane #no you don't engage with media critically you point at things and say That's Bad #ok sure why is it bad. what does that mean. what does its badness do the the text. #what can we learn from it. what other ideas are also present. #critical engagement means asking more questions! #not fewer!

[sparrowlucero]

Even if a creator is a bad person it's still okay to like their work. People need to mind their own business.

Honestly it's not really that sort of situation. I'll actively defend Steven Moffat here.

There was a huge hate movement for him back in the early 2010s - which, in retrospect, formed largely because he was running 2 of the superwholock shows at once, one of which went through extremely long hiatuses* and the other of which was functionally an adaptation of an already well regarded show**, making him subject to a sort of double ire in the eyes of a lot of fandom people. Notably, his co-showrunner, Mark Gatiss, is rarely mentioned and much of his work is still attributed to Moffat (and yes, this includes that Hbomberguy video. Several of "Steven Moffat's bad writing choices" were not actually written by him, they were Gatiss.)

People caricatured the dude into a sort of malicious, arrogant figure who hated women and was deliberately mismanaging these shows to spite fans, to the point where people who never watched them believe this via cultural osmosis. It became very common to take quotes from him out of context to make them look bad***, to cite him as an example of a showrunner who hated his fans, someone who sabotaged his own work just to get at said fans, someone who was too arrogant to take criticism, despite all of this being basically a collective "headcanon" formed on tumblr. Some if it got especially terrible, like lying about sexual assault (I don't mean people accused him of sexual assault and I think they're making it up, I mean people would say things like "many of his actresses have accused him of sexual assault on set" when no such accusations exist in the first place. This gets passed around en masse and is, in my opinion, absolutely rancid.)

On top of that a ton of the criticism directed at the shows themselves is, personally, just terrible media criticism. So much of it came from assuming a very hostile intent from the writer and just refusing to engage with the text at all past that.

Like some really common threads you see with critique of this writer's work, especially in regards to Doctor Who since that's the one I'm most familiar with:

A general belief that his lead characters were meant to be ever perfect self inserts, and so therefore when they act shitty or arrogant or flawed in any way, that's both reflective of the author and meant to be viewed as positive or aspirational.

An overarching thesis that his characters are "too important" in the narrative due to the writer's arrogance and self obsession

A lot of focus on the writer personally "attacking" the fans or making choices primarily out of spite.

A tendency to treat the show being different to what it's adapting as inherently bad and hostile towards the original

Just generally very little consideration of the themes, intent, etc.

This one's a little more nebulous and doesn't apply to all critique but a lot of it, especially recently, is clearly by people who haven't seen the show in like 10 years and their opinion is largely formed secondhand through like, "discourse nostalgia". Which. you know. bad.

I think these are just weird and nonsensical ways to engage with a work of fiction. I also think it's really sad to see the show boiled down to this because that era of who is, in my opinion, very thematically rich and unique among similar shows, and I hate that it's often dismissed in such a paltry way.

This isn't to say people aren't allowed to critique Steven Moffat or anything, but the context in which he basically became The Devil™ to a large portion of fandom and is still remembered in a poor light is very tied to this perfect storm of fan culture and I just don't agree with a ton of it.

* I'm sure most people have seen the way long running shows and hiatuses will cause people to fall out with a show, with some former fans turning around and joining a sort of "anti fandom" for it while it's still airing. That happened with both these shows. ** Doctor Who will change it's entire writing staff, crew, and cast every few years, and with that comes a change in style, tone, theme - the old show basically ends and is replaced by a new show under the same title. As Steven Moffat's era was the first of these handovers for the majority of audiences, you can imagine this wasn't a well loved move for many fans. *** I know for a fact most people have not sought out the sources for a lot of these quotes to check that they read the same in context because 1) most of them were deleted years ago and are very difficult to find now and 2) many of them do actually make sense in the context of their respective interviews

#and yeah i think the hbomberguy video is kind of bad #I can pull up examples but a lot of what he's saying is very rooted in this sort of critique #maybe most egregiously he sometimes just explains something very poorly or outright incorrectly to make it seem worse or more nonsensical #ex. saying a scene in doctor who 'steals a huge chunk of the plot' when it's less than 30 seconds long #saying two characters randomly start hanging out again while not mentioning the episode entirely dedicated to this #or the way her decision to keep hanging out with him is the emotional turning point of the entire season #etc etc etc.

[lady-raziel]

yeah fuck it i'm not done with my fanfic rant. it's very very clear that many of the people out there saying 'i don't read fanfic because its not canon and its poorly written'...have never really, truly spent the time to interact with fanfiction. it's kind of like they heard all the bad criticisms of fan writing, and just assumed they were true and never bothered to check for themselves.

yes, there are fanfics that are poorly written. yes, there are fanfics that are just porn. yes, there are even fanfics that are alternate universes of canon that may even have OOC characterizations. all of these things are true, and pretty much every fanfic enjoyer will agree with you.

but the point of fanfiction. the whole point is that you have to search around and find what you like. because for some reason, canon isn't doing it for you. or you just want to know what someone else's interpretation of how things could have happened is!

there are brilliant fanfictions. there are truly amazing, incredibly written fanfictions that take the good parts of a story and make them better. there are fanfictions better than actual published works that are better plotted out and researched than anything canon has to offer. but you have to FIND these fanfics, whether through recs or by searching yourself.

the people who say all fanfic is bad and poorly written seem to live with the expectation that good media will simply be handed to them and they can consume it unquestioningly. regardless of the slew of bad books, shows, and movies that exist and are thrown at us on a daily basis. would you really go so far as to say 'all tv shows have poor writing' because it took trying to watch several bad shows in your streaming recommendations to find one you liked? or do you really, honestly think that because something was made with profit in mind it inherently has better quality and more value than something made out of passion?

fanfic haters, find the love in your heart to engage with media you love outside of the context of it being sold to you. you may even find a gem among the coal that makes you love the original property even more.

#fanfiction #all of this has been said many times before but god #the battle is no closer to being won

[sokkastyles]

I have a question, I know we know that shipping does not equal morality. And I get that, and I really like that. However, on my other blog, that should have been my main blog (yes I am that dumb). I have talked about Aang's non-consensual and criticized how Kataang is written, however, if you ship Kataang I won't come for your throat because that's not my style. I know the few misogynists/antis on here and on Twitter, and I don't want to let a few bad apples be my impression of a fandom, that's not fair, So now I'm side-eyeing myself over my past remarks. Likewise, I know shipping is not equal to morality, but I also want to criticize Kataang because of how flawed it is and how wrong that kiss was (and other things). I have no idea what I'm saying because at this point I'm rambling. What do you think?

Well, there is a difference between criticizing a ship and criticizing canon. I don't honestly care what people ship. I use the antikataang tag because I don't want to argue with people who do ship it, but that doesn't mean I won't be critical of what is in the show. I think expecting people not to engage critically with media is absolute nonsense. But there is a difference between engaging critically with the actual media and criticizing people's fanon or headcanons, which is where you get away from critically engaging with canon and move into the area of criticizing other people's opinions, which is how arguments start.

Like, there isn't really any actual concrete argument you can make to criticize zutara, because zutara does not exist in canon. It's all fanon and headcanons and speculation. And criticizing other people's opinions just makes you look like a dick.

You also have to take into account the intention behind something. The thing about the way Katara's relationship with Aang is presented is that we're supposed to root for Aang to get Katara, and every obstacle towards that end is just there to create dramatic tension for the male point of audience identification. That's the real problem with the noncon kiss, and people who are critical of it are right to point it out.

In contrast, when I say shipping isn't morality, I'm talking about people who write, let's say, dubcon zutara fics. Fanfiction as a genre is largely female-centered fantasy. Yes, even those lurid fics you're thinking of. People write and read these fics for completely different reasons and have completely different expectations than when watching a series like ATLA. Trying to say that someone can't criticize the way the show presents Aang kissing Katara after she said she was confused as a mistake to be glossed over (that is forgotten as soon as it happens) because they also happen to like reading darkfic is nonsense. There's also a long history of women's interests being policed that informs my views here, vs the fact that consent has only fairly recently become a conversation in mainstream media. You have only to look at the way the show itself portrays Katara having interests (especially in boys) outside of Aang as dark and dangerous to see this happening in ATLA itself. Or the way the creators got away with saying that zutara shippers are doomed to end up in abusive relationships while painting Aang as a typical Nice Guy stereotype who expects Katara to magically become his girlfriend (and gets angry when she doesn't) and seeing nothing wrong with it.

The thing is that zutara, if we look at the way it's written in canon as a metaphor for a romantic relationship, follows the same tradition of how fanfiction has historically existed as an exploration of romantic and sexual dynamics. Those conversations about consent are actually happening and being explored in fanfiction, even the dark stuff, whereas relationships that are presented as "wholesome" often push us to NOT have those conversations. So when I say shipping isn't morality, what I actually mean is that noncanon shipping and darkfic actually has more of a moral leg to stand on than uncritically engaging with relationships on the grounds that Aang is the hero so his goodness and worthiness to get the girl should just be assumed. Zuko has to work for his right to be in a relationship with Katara because he didn't start out from a place of goodness, and that, on its own, is very female centered because instead of starting out from the perspective of the male hero deserving a relationship by virtue of being the hero, we see the idea that a man has to work to gain a woman's respect and affection.

So it's not so much that I hate KA, but I hate the idea that we should engage in it uncritically. And that would be true even if it really was the most wholesome relationship in the world. The same thing cannot be true of zutara because even the darkest of darkfic are about women centering themselves in the narrative and engaging with power dynamics in ways that are subverting patriarchal norms about relationships by definition.

#zutara #antikataang #the discourse

[ao3commentoftheday]

competence and cringe

Have you ever heard of the 4 stages (or quadrants) of competence? They're a useful way of looking at your skills on a spectrum.

unconscious incompetence - you don't know what you don't know. You lack a skill, but you also lack any information about what that skill requires and so you don't know that you're bad at it because you don't know what good looks like. Ignorance is bliss.

conscious incompetence - you know what you don't know. You've learned enough about the skill now to be able to identify all of the pieces you lack. You can see all of the places were you need to work and improve. Knowledge is pain.

conscious competence - you know, but you need to think. You have the skill now, but you still need to think about it in order to do it well. You've improved to the point where all of the pieces work well together, but you still need to concentrace to make it all smooth. Mindfulness is key.

unconscious competence - you forget how much you know. The skill is so solid and practiced that it feels natural to you now. You don't even notice anymore all of the different pieces that make up the skill because they all work together so well that it feels like one action. There is no thought, only do.

I was thinking of this model today with respect to cringe and I think a lot of the same concepts apply.

unconscious enjoyment - You like a thing wholeheartedly and uncritically. It is wonderful and you love it and you can't get enough of it.

conscious dissatisfaction- You've been introduced to concepts of critically engaging with media. You've learned harmful tropes and stereotypes. You see the kinds of media that get praised by your peer group or by others you look up to. You want to "enjoy better" and like things that others find valuable. You are ashamed of your earlier, uncritical self. You cringe looking back at them or others who are like them.

conscious satisfaction - You feel that you still like something even though other people say it's problematic, and you still give yourself permission to enjoy it as long as you acknowledge all of its faults while you do. You miss the days of being able to like things without thinking about them so much or feeling guilty. You cringe now at how black and white you thought things were during your conscious dissatisfaction stage.

conscious enjoyment - You realize that interest and enjoyment are not moral compasses. You know that all media has its faults, that no creators are without their issues. You learn more about your own tastes and what you actually like, as opposted to what you think you should like. Looking back at yourself, the cringe is fainter. You have sympathy for past-you and maybe even a fondness. You don't enjoy unconsciously anymore, but you don't always feel the need to analyze every aspect anymore.

As always, I'm working my way through these concepts as I type them out into a tumblr post. I'd love to hear your thoughts on them!

#thinky thoughts #why is my brain like this? #who knows lol

[mutfruit-salad]

I am sorry.

I enjoyed the show, I didn't analyze it critically when I should have and actively recommended it.

I realize the error of my ways and feel guilty.

Do you have any recommendations for good media in place of it?

The thing is that engaging with media isn't activism and engaging with more "ethical" media doesn't make for a better worldview. It's fundamentally impossible to purify your soul by consuming art, and the idea of purity in that way is already missing the forest for the trees.

Fallout New Vegas, along with 1 and 2, are games I love deeply. But New Vegas has horrendous problems with racism- specifically anti indigenous racism. 2 has some awful tonal problems and some downright horrifically aged humor.

The thing is, despite these works not being perfect- I still find tremendous value in them. The show, for all I have said about the ways it makes me deeply uncomfortable, is still quite often an engaging piece of art: an impressive passion project of thousands of creators and writers and filmmakers coming together to make something they believed in.

While I find the show's narratives quite troubling- I am also enraptured by the ways they're often presented. It is a show that is stylish and interesting and I think most people watching it don't notice these things.

Media analysis isn't a means of solving the ills of the world- because making media less problematic wouldn't solve any of the underlying biases that the society that PRODUCES this media has. Works like these are a branch of the tree, not a root. I'm pointing these things out as a way of countering some of these narratives- but also with the hope that it will help people notice these narratives in other places.

I'm not telling you that you can't like the show, or that liking the show makes you a bad person. I don't like it personally- and I'm wary of much of what the show is saying- but ultimately it is just a piece of art, and it should be understood as part of the current cultural landscape- created to turn a profit and entertain audiences. It is a product of its time and its culture and should be understood as such.

The things present in the show that we find offensive stem from the society that produced it- and must be understood as systemic problems and not one-off failings of the Fallout show team (not to say they are innocent, just that their particular wrongdoings are part of a larger issue.)

There are things far more important than the fallout show being problematic. Save the energy for other fights. There are a lot of people who need help right now. Take this as a learning lesson, and look out for these things in the world around you- not just on TV and in movies.

I hope this doesn't come off as rude or dismissive, and I hope it gives you something to think on.

#fallout #fallout new vegas #fallout show

[antlerqueer]

sorry im literally putting all of my complaints about ppl's critiques of leave the world behind here bc it's alll..... like what? so i literally looked up interviews from sam esmail and rumaan alam and i'm not crazy!!! the things i was like "this is the opposite of what was going on??" were actually the opposite of what was going on.

Some criticism I've seen is people saying "the movie mocks Rose's dependence on technology with the final scene" but it was like... Rose's journey was seeking her own solution to not wanting to be miserable and inside and waiting for death?? And she found it??

Quote from Sam Esmail, from Rolling Stone (emphasis mine):

During the early days of the pandemic, I remember how we were all very scared. We were scared for our loved ones, we were scared for one another, we were scared for ourselves. People were dying on a daily basis and we were locked in and trapped. There was this real sense of fear and anxiety. And then Tiger King dropped on Netflix and that was all we could talk about for weeks.  As silly as that show is, I love that we as a community dropped our differences to engage with this story and to laugh with it and talk about it. I just found that very human. I love when you can mix tragedy and comedy like that because I do think the essence of tragic comedy speaks directly to who we are and to the human condition.  So when I was constructing this story, I felt that throughout all this bleakness, to have this character, Rose, escape into something comfortable — I thought that was just something that felt like a kind of universal touchstone.

Rumaan Alam, the author, also says this to Variety:

I say it’s funny, but I don’t think it’s a joke. I don’t think it’s a joke on Rose. I don’t think it’s a joke on the audience. I don’t think it’s a joke on “Friends.” It’s a reminder that art is kind of a salve.

Sam Esmail LOVES media. He's not fucking condemning a child for wanting comfort????? Anyway. The dependence on technology isn't a point of inherent criticism, it is a point of what do we do when our survival is reliant on technology but we lose it. It's part of the horror. It's scary.

Literally, a quote from Esmail in GQ:

[It] really kind of underlines the theme of this reliance on tech, and once it goes away, what are we left with? And that in its own way is pretty terrifying.

I've seen it said Julia Roberts's character was "redeemed" in the film from her bad actions, which I so heavily disagree with, and so does Rumaan Alam, in the Variety interview:

In that final scene between Julia and Myha’la, they don’t embrace. Even prior to that, when they’re in that little shed and come to a détente, Ruth acknowledges that there’s some truth to the things that Amanda has said, that they’re in agreement about something, but it doesn’t end with a hug. It’s not that kind of story.

(A detente is "the easing of hostility or strained relations" - not a reprieve or a reconciliation, but an easing.)

These characters don't have to like or forgive each other to agree that there are things more important to survival and making it through than Amanda being overbearing and racist. Ruth lost her mother and even though Amanda steps in and maybe saves her life (we don't know what the deer were gonna do) that is not an apology! And it's not treated like one because we don't see any sort of forgiveness from Ruth!

And then the whole "it's an attack from a foreign government making the US a victim" shit. Like... GH theorizes, out loud, that this could be the US government's doing? Anyway.

#leave the world behind #it's a rant folks #i'm sorry i'm like this

[myfandomrealitea]

I really wanted to ask you about this:

Do you have any advice of how to develop critical thinking and media literacy?

There are many, many ways you can practice critical thinking, evaluation and media literacy. At its most basic, you can access student resources for lower levels of education like earlier high school years and look at the examples and guidance given there. Rehashing this will often give you a good foundation to build off of and apply.

One of the main aspects of critical thinking involves discerning what is fact and what is opinion. A good portion of media analytics is opinion. What is 'bad' by one person's standards is 'sub-par' or even 'great' by another's. Similarly, the majority of fandom space is opinion-based. The main pitfall of fandom spaces is that everyone wants their opinion to be taken as fact, which is where critical thinking and even basic communication begin to fall away.

"I'm right and you're wrong" and "this is the way it should be, if you do it or think differently, you're wrong" are common roadblocks people run into when engaging with things like media analysis and even basic fandom activities like fanfiction.

'Mischaracterisation' is fanfiction is one popular topic, especially here on Tumblr. What people often fail to recognize is the true creative depth of fanfiction and using someone else's pre-existing characters. Characters as they are in the source material may not make the choices or behave in the ways necessary to activate or validate certain plot material or author intentions in fanfiction. Which is, inherently, one of the main points of fanfiction. Exploring the alternate.

While you might immediately recoil and say "he'd never do that!" you then have to sit back and recognise that that's exactly the point. That this iteration of that character is not meant to directly reflect the source material. Its a re-imagining, a re-interpretation. That doesn't mean its bad. Its simply different.

'Mischaracterisation' is only actually applicable in fandom spaces when someone is trying to insist as a blanket fact that a character would do something or behave in a way that blatantly contradicts their canon behavior, opinions, morals and perspective or deliberately interpreting an action in biased bad faith. It is not actually applicable to fanfiction where creative liberty dictates you can do whatever the fuck you want with a character because you're not trying to claim it as part of the source content.

Questions To Ask Yourself

Am I reacting to [media] emotionally instead of rationally? Is my emotional response to [media] blinding me to the rational or critical approach(es)?

Am I allowing my expectations to get in the way of me understanding [media] fully? Am I forming a biased negative opinion of [media] because it isn't meeting my expectations?

Even if I disagree with [media], do I actually understand it? Can I recognise the reasoning behind choices made or actions even if I don't agree with them?

Am I searching too hard to hidden meaning or purpose in absolutely everything? Can I recognise what is simply passive information/detail and what is active information/detail? (E.g; English tutors saying a character's curtains are blue because they're depressed when throughout the literature its passively reinforced that blue is the character's favorite color.)

Even though I disagree with the statement or opinion shown, is it necessary to argue against it? Is there any benefit to making my counter-opinion known or is it simply a no-end argument? Am I just using arguing as a means of release/fulfilment? Am I treating this person poorly because of their opinion/statement?

Resources

Critical Thinking Exercises & Explanations #1 The Critical Thinking Activity Workbook Early Stage Critical Thinking Games Five Media Literacy Activities Six Media Literacy Ideas

#myfandomrealitea #sephiroth speaks #fandom #reality #fanfiction #fanfic #fan fic #literature #media literacy #critical thinking #education #fandom culture #activities #games #fiction #ao3

[mariacallous]

The patriarch of a right-wing Canadian family of 11 had had just about enough of gay people in his country. “We didn't feel safe for our children there in the future anymore,” father Arend Feenstra told Russian media. “There's a lot of left-wing ideology, LGBTQ, trans, just a lot of things that we don't agree with that they teach there now, and we wanted to get away from that for our children.”

Yeah, if there’s one place that’s just not safe for kids, it’s Canada. Russia would be soooo much safer. 

So Arend (and wife Anneesa) sold everything they had to move to sunny Russia and raise eight of their nine kids with “orthodox” values. They also gladly took donations on their social media platform from fellow right-wingers, all so they could live in Vladimir Putin’s wonderland. Russian officials assured them that they would work with them to get them established, and even help them get a farm. They did all of this just three weeks ago; long story short, they lived happily ever after. 

Except they didn’t. 

First, according to the family, the Russian bank where they moved the proceeds from selling their farm and belongings? It immediately froze their assets. The amount of money seemed suspicious, Arend states in a Feb. 9 video. I guess it would, since so many Russians outside of Putin’s circle are dirt poor. As a result, the family didn’t have money to live on—apparently those nice Russian officials offering to help them had disappeared.

Since no one in the family speaks Russian, they’ve also had a bear of a time trying to argue for their money—because Russia doesn’t require any bank, or any business, to hire English translators. In the meantime, they discovered that Russia is a pretty damn miserable place to be right now.

TikTok user Ukrainian.Networking translated a Russian Federation Reported Media story in a snarky post. 

The Russian reporter noted that Anneesa spoke her mind in a since-deleted video on the family’s “Countryside Acres” YouTube channel.

"I'm very disappointed in this country at this point. I'm ready to jump on a plane and get out of here. We've hit the first snag where you have to engage logic in this country and it's very, very frustrating."

Hoooo boy. They just arrived and already she’s insulted Russia. Now, I’m not saying Russia doesn’t have freedom of the press, but it’s really just freedom to praise Putin and the country he controls. Anything that resembles criticism in Russia is NOT taken as kindly as it is in our godless Western dystopias. I’m also not suggesting that Russian officials paid the family a visit to remind them of where they are, but I will point out that Arendquickly posted an apology video to the Countryside Acres channel, saying that his wife misspoke and they’d deleted the video. 

In that video, he reiterated that no, Russia is really, really great (subtext: “Please don’t push me out of a window”) and he spoke of his hope to resolve the issue with the bank. Commenters weren’t so sure, or kind. They pointed out that the bank will likely never release their funds and it is more likely that he will be recognized as a foreign agent.

At this point, I’m not sure the Countryside Acres farming gig is going to work out. Patriarch Arend should have agreed to be used as a tool for Russian state media. I mean, if you are going to be a Russian Asset, might as well go all-in. 

I’m willing to bet that living in a country that grants gay people basic civil rights might not be looking so bad now. I was wondering if the family is desperately trying to split, so I looked up how difficult it is to leave Russia. According to the BBC, you can leave “as long as you have money and have not been called up to the army.” 

Even if only for his kids’ sakes, let’s hope Arend’s only lost his money.

And I’ll end with this charming reprise of a German eurodisco tribute to Moscow, originally released in 1979. (English lyrics here)

“Welcome to Moscow!” At least the song is catchy.

Comment Award goes to Laughing Gravy: “I’ll bet back home they used to whine about immigrants who don’t know the language, who have no money, who expect the government to hand them a house and a job, and who complain when they don’t get everything they want.”

#Youtube

[night-market-if]

Helloo, while I agree with you that Milo is also a victim, I also think that the other anons are also justified in feeling that way about him. I'm really sorry if I'm wrong, but the way you reply to other people's thoughts, about things that you don't have the same opinion on, feels like you're telling them that they are wrong to feel that way.

Let's unpack this for a minute. Because I think this is a great opportunity.

I am not invalidating that anyone has an opinion. They are allowed to have an opinion. And, if they approached me like you just did, I would most likely respond to that opinion in a constructive way. But someone messaging me and just throwing out a random feeling they have that is negative, and then getting mad at me in return when I don't agree with them, is childish. I will not be apologizing for that because most of the people that are "angry" about something, come at me in a really negative context. And then when I state something differently (without attacking them even) they get irrationally upset. I mean, a prime example is me saying that Milo is also a victim. That there can be more than one victim. I then got a response saying I was the one flying off the handle. Following that was another response telling me that I am a hated author. That my game is terrible. That I am a bad person. I mean, think about that for a minute here. Does the response corelate with what I said? Does it warrant that? No.

People are always valid to have an opinion, but there are two things to say about it. Most of the time, the people coming at me, are internet trolls. Not actual readers. And I'm sorry, we were indoctrinated at a young age to "ignore the bullies" and I just don't think that is the right response. Because now we have a generation that ignored the bullies and they got way worse because no one had a social contract to call them out.

Two, the ones that are not trolls, are lacking a lot of media literacy. That is actually an extreme problem within our society. And, since I am the author, it is my job to offer what I was trying to say within my story. That may not align with someone's opinion. But me having my own opinion, does not warrant someone getting mad at me. I didn't get mad at them so why am I suddenly greeted with toxicity.

I get where you are coming from saying that people are allowed to have their own opinion. And I have stated over and over again that everyone is valid for it. I'm not even saying for someone to change their mind or go away. But, someone else's opinion does not invalidate my own. Just as my own does not invalidate theirs. And if someone feels like it does, and this is going to sound cruel, but it is not my responsibility to regulate that for them. That most likely stems from a personal standpoint. I am not responsible for someone being offended by what I have to say about my own story and my own fictional characters. You don't see me coming on here and crying out that someone on anon made me "feel bad". That's not a thing.

There is a difference between just saying something out loud and engaging in a conversation. Constructive criticism is where you offer a opinion, give why you are offering it, and then explain how it does or does not work for the narrative. Then, I can come back, ask questions, respond with what maybe I was intending, and figure out a better way to get what I was intending across.

Non constructive criticism is just coming to me as an anon, and saying they are angry and want to hurt someone. Or that they don't like something of my story without giving why.

To further some points. Milo is a triggering character. I knew this from the beginning. The things that he did is not for the faint of heart and speaks to betrayal. And a lot of people who have been in a situation where they feel betrayed, are going to respond negatively to that. But, that is on them. That is for them to work through and own. It is not the responsibility of my story to change because of that. And coming on to say that you hate a character and want to harm them. Or coming on to say that I'm a bad writer. Or even coming on to say that I'm hated on reddit (to which I say, isn't everyone?) is providing nothing to this community, world, or our author reader relationship. It is done solely with the intent to try and hurt someone because the reader themselves was hurt.

To end this, I am going to make this statement. Telling me it "feels" like I am telling someone they are wrong is based in a personal feeling towards a situation. It is not based in facts. It is not based in anything that I have said. And while everyone has a right to their opinion, just because I am an author and a content creator, does not mean I don't get to defend my story or my characters. If I was being racists, sexist, transphobic? All things to come at someone for. But because I wrote something that makes people angry and they don't want to continue going on a journey with the characters and would rather just block their minds to character growth? I can't do anything about that. If there is no conversation they want to engage in, if they simply want to come on and troll me, then they need to not be surprised when I treat them the same way they are treating me.

I hope this makes more sense and provides some understanding.

Zinnia

#the night market #media literacy #author speaks #constructive critism welcome

[andreal831]

TVDU and Morality

I've recently said, a few times, that the morality debates in the TVDU fandom are boring, and some people have gotten offended so I thought I would explain.

First, this idea of hypocrisy in the fandom is laughable. The amount of times I've been called a hypocrite because I've called out problematic behavior, while also liking a problematic character. The gut reaction for so many in this fandom when their favorite character is being criticized is to shift the conversation onto a completely different character and even to the commenter themselves. This is boring and even downright offensive at times. Every single character has been a hypocrite at times. It doesn't inherently mean someone is bad. It means they are "human" and life can make hypocrites of all of us at times. Also, just to clarify, I am not a hypocrite for merely liking a problematic character. I promise I have never nor will I ever commit the acts that I criticize these characters for, which would be the definition of hypocrisy. I have also never told anyone they can't like certain characters.

We have these complicated characters and none of them are "good" people because, guess what, people aren't just one or the other. Everyone has the capability to be "bad" or "good." Trying to put a character firmly on one side is a generalization and ignores so much nuance. Some of their actions may be completely bad or completely good, but typically even that is an oversimplification. Are there characters that seem to do more bad things or more good things, definitely. Are their some characters that cross certain, unnecessary lines, absolutely. Are we allowed to criticize and question every character, please do! That's literally what media literacy is about.

Every single one of these characters has had completely selfish moments (except maybe Bonnie) and every single one of them has had moments of selflessness. These acts don't inherently demonize a character or automatically redeem one. This is what it means to have interesting, complex debates about characters. Looking at the characters as a whole and having open discussions of what it means. We can still love the character and acknowledge the good and the bad of the character.

Another annoying point that is always brought up is, "they weren't born evil, they were made that way." Yes, we get it. No one is born evil. Whether it is mental illness or life events that shape a person, they still have to take responsibility for their own actions. Obviously certain mental illnesses didn't have treatments for a very long time, but that doesn't just allow people to be serial killers.

Every single character has dealt with trauma, and how you react says a lot about a person's character. Separating out characters to say well "x" didn't deserve it but when they became "x" they did. No one deserves good or bad things. I know I say it all the time, they deserved better, but when I do, I'm being facetious. I'm saying I wanted better for that character, better writing, better storylines, a better ending, etc. That phrasing implies that some people deserve better lives than others and I just morally don't agree. No one deserves trauma or abuse. That logic only furthers the cycle of abuse. Now, that being said, people are responsible for their own actions. Spend centuries creating enemies, and guess what, a lot of bad things are going to happen to you.

But the real debates I enjoy having, and have been fortunate to find so many people to engage in these debates, is the morality of the decisions in context of the characters. I like to apply similar logic from the Trolley Problem. If you don't know what that is, enjoy this tik tok I made of Cami teaching the Mikaelsons.

Essentially, many of the characters weight their options, like Jeremy killing Kol and thousands of vampires with it in order to find the cure. Kol is a thousand year old serial killer and is attempting to kill Jeremy, but again Kol is attempting to stop Silas from rising. Neither side is inherently right or wrong. There is a debate to be had.

In the majority of situations in the show there is a debate to be had. The only exceptions being any SA. I will never debate the morality of these actions. Even for immoral characters, there is a line to be drawn.

These debates get even more complex in TO because we move into a world where nearly every character has done absolutely horrendous things. It's okay to sit down and say, "This thing that x did was awful, but I can see their reasoning." It is not justifying their actions, but allowing the characters to be the complex morally corrupt characters that they all are.

#just thought I would clarify some things #I just want to debate these characters #without people getting absolutely angry in the comments #like they are all serial killers #but we can still love them cause they're fictional #but I can still hate/dislike other characters for crossing certain lines #that's why so many different characters exist #we all have our own things we work out through fiction #tvdu #the originals #the vampire diaries #the mikaelsons #tvd #tvdu metas #metas

[olderthannetfic]

Something I find really exhausting is the ongoing insistence in fandom that you give up on something if it's problematic. Yes, canon is problematic. A lot of good fanwork can come out of asking, "what if we change X, Y and Z?" or "what if we actually really explored how fucked up X, Y and Z are?" or "what if we write about what comeuppance in retaliation to X, Y or Z would look like?" Saying that if something is problematic, we should just give up on it as a piece of media and not engage doesn't do anything in terms of activism, but it also doesn't let me as a person sit back and really think, brainstorm ideas, look into how similar shit impacts people IRL, etc. I learned a lot from my problematic faves because it made me research shit in order to write fic accurately or fic written to fix the worst and most egregious aspects of something taught me something.

Consumption as moral action and refusal to engage in something as the only option are really pointless, but also they don't let people get the catharsis of screaming about the problem in question for a while. I like that catharsis. That catharsis is useful for me as a trans biracial person. "Think critically!!!" I did, that's why the fic is fun, because I'm slinging mud back at canon. "Think about your faves!!!" I did, I just also think that writing people struggling with shit is cathartic because I too am dealing with shit. "Why don't pro-shippers/anti-antis/other fanfic term about shipping that I'm applying to you despite you not shipping anything be critical of their shows' canons?" I do. My thesis statement is that this canon is a dumpster, it's just a dumpster I'd like to dive in for a bit to see hat I can build out of the trash piles.

I hate that so much of fandom has become "cast everything impure aside". That's my emotional support impure thing. I use it to get into and work through shit. But also, casting aside every impure thing doesn't challenge anyone intellectually. "Your fave is problematic" cool but like, saying that and setting something aside doesn't do anything for my mind. It doesn't get gears turning. I don't think or feel in response to refusing to engage with things. So what's the point to giving up a problematic thing instead of delving into it and really looking at the nuts and bolts? What's the benefit? What am I gaining from abandoning everything that has issues?

And the response is always just a repetition of, "your fave is problematic", as if that's the answer to the question. Having one less problematic thing in your life is both an act of activism and a reward for your activism, I guess? It's an accomplishment of some kind, hence why you should do it, and failure to do so must mean you don't think at all.

I wish "think critically" wasn't used to mean "never engage with". I like critical thinking. I just don't find any critical thinking, or really any thinking at all, to be present in "thing bad, discard, the end".

--

[corvuscorona]

"You Never Forget Your First Love."

The other day, a mutual (hi! you know who you are I think probably hello hi! thank you for the Posting Impetus!) said something that made me curious (for, like, the 80th time, actually; lol. I Have Thoughts) about something: what's the split on people who subscribe to the "Stranger of Paradise probably intended for us to believe that Jack & Sarah were in love" mindset, vs. not? In general, but ESPECIALLY around these parts.

I genuinely didn't read it that way myself (& I do NOT normally give media (general) this much credit, but the writing in this game is sublime; I had no choice but to fully engage Scholar Mode on it), + I think it's interesting that SPECIFICALLY any of my fellow tumblr people / AO3-heads / Gay People Online / etc. seem to have. (I expect nothing from people who haven't been basting themselves in the same online sub-subcultures as me for over a decade. They're allowed to write wrong things on wikis, and have done so already; it's whatever.)

I wanna metapost badly again, so let's go. Join me. No poll. If you have an opinion on this, I'm looking directly into your eyes and beckoning you towards your own keyboard + also the reblog button / comment section, like a weird ghost. What did you think when you first played the game?? What do you think right now? What are you about to think after you have read a bunch of my words. Tell Me. I Need To Know This.

Spoilers for, idk, everything? Today we will use everything we've got to talk about Princess Sarah.

1. As a Narrative Element

This game makes a point of referring to Sarah as things like "a symbol of hope and peace" as often as possible, & when it isn't doing that she's usually in the role of An Object Or Device Of Some Kind, anyway. She's important because she's capable of holding light and dark in balance & SOMEONE'S gotta hold onto this dark crystal for safekeeping, and also we're gonna need to upset that balance on purpose later. There's that conversation in the Wicked Arbor about whether the Strangers would "choose" her (as opposed to "treasure") as the "reward" for succeeding in their mission[1], & there's the one in the Sunken Shrine where Jed asks Jack what he thinks of her and Jack says that he doesn't care about her as a person[2] BUT that protecting her is mission-critical (lol), too.

Sarah's death is metaphorically charged. It's the point of no return: the dark crystal breaks, the balance of light & dark gets extremely ruined, & Literally All The Darkness In Cornelia converges in one place (Fool's Missive XXVII). That's the payoff for the "symbol of hope and peace" motif, and communicating this idea that "the metaphorical light of hope just For Real Died, Like Catastrophically Imploded, No Take-Backs" feels to me like it was the highest priority here. Second-highest goes to "Jack had way more humanity before, but he set it aside on purpose and is actively in the middle of losing the rest of it." "Sort of." "I'm not getting into what counts as humanity or doesn't because if I did we would be here forever."

Basically, I'm saying that the tidiest read on the situation is "Jack despairs because Sarah dying means in a very literary and final way that everything is ruined forever, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with, like, Love (romantic)." I don't think the text of the game is particularly signaling that Love (romantic) is involved, and I think that if it meant to, it would be more obvious about it. You could bundle "an romance" into the "humanity" thing if you wanted to, but I'm not inclined to, based on some additional list items that you can read below this one.

[1] The fact that Neon ALSO says she feels bad for her for being thought of in this way only reinforces my conviction that the game is pointing at Sarah & yelling "REMEMBER THAT SHE IS MOSTLY A SYMBOL!", tbh. Who wants to go point out how freaky the mechanics of Being An Royalty are w/ me and the boys??

[2] I will give the Wiki WrongPosters this: I can totally see this as some kind of irony thing, given that he's still missing like a fucktillion of his memories when he says it. However! As mentioned above, I have other reasons not to read it as evidence that he was ever, like, romantically interested in her.

2. As a Sheltered Youth™

We don't have a TON of information to work with RE: Sarah as, like, a person, but here are a couple of hard facts to start with: she's 19 (per the data book, but she'd have to be somewhere in the 18-to-early-20's age range regardless or her whole deal wouldn't really make much sense, imo. She's a baby...!), and she's royalty. I think this ties into her utility as a walking metaphor, among other things; she's archetypically young, fresh, & idealistic. I'd call her naïve but the game obviously isn't interested in portraying it as a weakness, so positive words only; why not.

You could argue that people look to her as a symbol of hope because she hasn't directly experienced enough strife to exhibit hopelessness or fear in response to bad news in the abstract. I find it interesting that before Jack, like, knocks the wind out of her & tells Sophia to take her outside so she can see for herself how bad things have gotten at the end of the game, she says that her duty is to die with her people if she has to, & it doesn't even seem to occur to her that she could lead at least some of them away to safety...? When she changes her mind, she still talks about herself as a symbol before she ever uses the word "leader". She sees HERSELF in terms of symbols and metaphors, and takes action based on her designated role As One Of Those. Not very practical.

There's also the dialogue you can have with the queen the first time you're allowed to run around in the throne room at the beginning of the game, where she asks Jack to smile in front of her daughters (NOT just Mia; daughters, plural). Even if she only means "dude can you be polite please," the fact that this is The thing she has to say to Jack is telling. Is it going to upset your 19-year-old daughter to see that the Guy Whose Job It Is To Kill Monsters looks serious? Why do you think this? Does your 19-year-old daughter understand how serious the situation is, generally speaking? Do you not WANT her to for some reason? Boats don't work anymore unless a weird elf messes with them first. Not thinking very hard about the implications of this is something a sheltered person does.

Residual time loop un-memories aside, a young woman in this situation is so obviously going to have a huge crush on Jack Garland no matter what. He Is So Cool, first of all, & he's also Different from the adult men she gets to see on an everyday basis (family, guards, rando townspeople[3]...). It's not like the political social scene could POSSIBLY be thriving in this world, either; it all seems to be one kingdom we're dealing with and they're kind of busy with the external threat of being Under Fucking Attack By Monsters. Does she even get fun treats like "handsome visiting dignitaries" & what-have-you? The game doesn't present us with any potential options, here. Jack is mysterious, he has special-boy Warrior of Light status, his one job & apparent life's purpose is protecting the kingdom she loves, he's pretty nice to her (even in later cycles he at least goes out of his way to be polite!), & additionally, he's shredded. THIS makes sense to me.

There's a Q&A in the data book that has something to say about JACK as a symbol & what that has to do with this whole thing but we'll get there. We'll get there.

[3] Tangent: what's up with how Cornelia's entire adult male population appears to consist of aging queens. Why did they only make models that look Like That for the NPCs? It's awesome but I have 1 quastion

3. JACK JUMPSCARE !

I'm not about to say that he's just humoring her, or anything, but please humor ME for one second & put yourself in Jack's shoes. Not the default shoes; we can have more fun than that. Maybe the Banded Boots. Blurple ones? Shaped like a cartoon would wear them? Big spikes on the back for no reason? I love those things. Anyway, you're Jack. You're working for literally the king, & the work means Everything to you for reasons you can't even necessarily explain except to say that it JUST does. The king's eldest daughter (very young adult; Never Been Outdoors; a little overly-sociable but nice enough & what do you expect from a princess, anyway) has imprinted on you like a duckling for whatever reason. You would be nice to this person, yes? You'd be patient with her while you're in town. You have Brutal Murders to be doing, but not until, like, 2 days from now, or whatever; you're sharing space with her in some capacity in the meantime & it's in your best interests to keep her happy. (You probably even enjoy doing this, if you're Jack of a Way Earlier Cycle; I'm in no way ruling that out. Sharing your music collection with an enthusiastic Baby Adult? That's fun. I think he was probably having fun. Okay, you can step out of the fun purple shoes if you want; the Humoring Me Minute has concluded; thanks.)

Also, @2000sanimeop and I think that if Jack felt that way about her Astos would have been a little More Something about how much it was gonna suck for him when she died. In Fool's Missive XXVII he uses the word "painful," but that's about it. He doesn't even bring it up in XXV, which is the one where he says he's curious about whether she'd survive being turned into a fiend (side note: Astos fucking rocks. Why did he write that down?? I love him). & Hey SPEAKING OF ASTOS,

4. I wouldn't put Jackstos on a wiki, either.

The writing in Stranger of Paradise, SERIOUSLY, WITHOUT EXAGGERATION, is some of the best I've seen in literally anything ever. It suits not just its medium but also its sort of Place in History Relative to Other Video Games & the things it chose to DO with that medium & that niche INSANELY well. It is CUSTOMIZED. It's SO INTENTIONAL. I can't get too far into this or we'll be here all day, but the essence of what I want to say here is: there are relatively few facts presented to us by this game, compared to the implications we can go about drawing from those facts & other, external sources of context.

Sarah calls Jack her first love; that's a fact. No facts are presented to us that REALLY say much one way or the other[4] about what Jack thinks of this, himself; "fucktillion memories missing" Jack says he doesn't care, but he's missing a fucktillion of his memories, and DLC2 Jack has a set of dialogue options (hi Anne the Malboro I love you Anne the Malboro) that can point either way depending on what the player chooses, which is kind of nothing, on balance. As the audience, we can (should!) draw whatever conclusion we want about it, but none of those conclusions are text.

[4] I WILL GET TO THE DATA BOOK IN ONE SECOND. HOLD ON.

And, okay, please let me level with you. Let's be on the same page. Jack & Astos had some kind of thing going on, imo, OBVIOUSLY, but I want to be CLEAR and I want to get CREDIT for the things I'M bringing to the table to help generate this conviction. I drew that conclusion & I read that reading based on subtext, context, personal history, personal preference, & sheer gay zest for life. It is also, emphatically, NOT TEXT.

Astos refers to Jack with the ol' "...friend" in Fool's Missive XXI. He calls him "my Jack" in Fool's Missive XXXI. Canonically, textually, he has some big fucking COMPLICATED fucking feelings about this man. These are facts. If you're playing this game as Some Guy, I can see how you could potentially absorb these facts & still pay them much less regard[5] than I did & continue to. My argument here is that god I wish I lived in a world where Some Guy could extend the same courtesy to me and not treat Sarah's textual affection for Jack as something that necessarily indicates Some Kind Of Reciprocal Romantic Whatever, Definitely, Obviously, Of Course.

[5] Longer Tangent: I have been informed that the Some Guys of the world are currently pretty good at Recognizing a character that behaves in a way that's Pretty Gay, but tend to stop there, possibly for the combined reasons that A. they're not very familiar with a lot of the the ways gay relationships often work (you know, soul resonance. mutual recognition. sharing a brain etc.) and B. the Object Of Affection is usually the player character and they subconsciously shy away from thinking of a Guy They're Supposed To Identify With as gay. This is practically a lead-in to an entire separate post I could make, so I'll leave it at that, lol.

The writing is too good for that kind of assumption! I'M SERIOUS!! It's mind-blowingly subtle & endlessly fascinating to hold up to the light & view from every possible angle, and "Jack & Sarah were in love" + "Jack & Astos were in love" are BOTH ANGLES. I'm personally very very interested in giving the text credit for that. I think it's impressive. I think it's really, really cool, and I think it was on purpose. Speaking of which,

5. Word of God agrees with me, btw

This is from the Q&A section on page 156 of the Confidential File. The translations below are my own (I think they're straightforward enough, but lmk if you know more than me & I'm actually being stupid in there somewhere. Alt text has the JPN, if you want to copypaste it or something). Someone asked:

Why is it that you established Garland as someone Sarah has a romantic interest in?

The answer is from Daisuke Inoue (director, one of 3; the other 2 are from Team Ninja; he's from Square Enix):

That was because, from a narrative standpoint, we wanted Sarah to be the kind of person who holds onto hope. You can imagine that she saw the "hope" to save the world in Jack, a potential Warrior of Light. Sarah is seen by her people as a symbol of a bright future, but if there were nobody to give her hope, that might destabilize her emotionally. As for whether she felt genuine love for Jack, or just mistook her feelings of admiration towards him for "first love," we'll leave that to your interpretation.

The first time I read this, I thought the question was implying the aforementioned Reciprocal Something, but on closer inspection that doesn't even seem to be true! "思い人" seems to indicate a directional relationship; as in, the question assumes that Jack is an object of affection to Sarah, but assumes nothing about what Jack thinks.

Also, the answer uses the word "初恋" (hatsukoi), which is a very established Concept as far as "first love" goes, but in that one cutscene, Sarah says "初めての恋" (hajimete no koi), which is. Different, but I couldn't tell you how, lol. It's Not The Exact Same Phrase, but I'm not sure whether it's meaningfully different in this context. If I had to guess, I'd say that IF ANYTHING it could be a way of saying "first love" without invoking the cultural CONSTRUCT of First Love (as much)? But it's whatever. The localization holds up. All sources show that Sarah had Feelings about Jack, and all sources CONSPICUOUSLY neglect to mention Jack's feelings about her.

It was on purpose. This is my license to be as annoying as I want for one second here. I am right. All the other writing in this game is notably subtle, efficient, intentional, and skilled, AND ALSO, WHEN do you ever see anyone write such a richly beautiful, mostly-subtextual relationship between two men, which can easily be read as a romantic thing, and NOT explicitly canonize a very possible romantic relationship between at least one of those men and a woman, like not even in an interview or anything. What the fuck, man.

I'm putting away the Respectable Scholar Hat now. This is so funny. The person asking this question didn't EVEN go as far as assuming Jack & Sarah had any kind of Actual Romance going on, & the answer STILL dials it back to "she might have been conflating her feelings about Jack AS A SYMBOL with actual affection, also. We'll let you decide : ) ". This game is everything ever.

#stranger of paradise #that's it that's the only tag. there's enough words under that readmore for anyone&everyone. happy weekend!!!

[taylortruther]

I'd also like to add that when people who approach media like this have decided that a certain person is "problematic" = bad, they can never escape from that epithet and will *always* be bad: even if they do something good, that can and will be framed as deflection/damage control/PR/otherwise ingenuine so it doesn't count.

It's basically unfalsifiable, which just so happens to be the type of logic conspiracy theorists use to reinforce their theories: any evidence superficially working against the assumption that So-and-so Is A Bad Person is actually extra proof that they're a bad person!

yeah, that's definitely what i saying in my post. it's not productive or healthy to judge people by the amount of good and bad things they've done in life - but it's also not equal. the whole "my fave is problematic" view of life is twisted. but good point about how it's unfalsifiable - it's a logical fallacy that creates an echo chamber.

and i'm absolutely not saying to ignore public figures' shitty behavior. actually, in a way, i think all wealthy people should feel some heat for their actions. but if you do want to engage in celebrity stanning, it's critical to understand that a celeb's actions don't dictate your own political stances. also, talking shit about a celebrity isn't meaningful political action.

like, hot take, but i disagree with a lot of taylor's politics. but i also just... accept she is an extremely different person, politically, than i am. the idea that her behaviors reflect my politics is wild. i'm a leftist LMAO i'm just here for fun.

[creature-wizard]

I don't know if I just haven't encountered it yet, but I haven't really seen anyone talking about or acknowledging something that's neither Unverified Personal Gnosis or Shared Personal Gnosis, but rather a third thing: Personal Group Gnosis.

PGG emerges from a small group of people having similar experiences to each other, which may or may not resemble anything that people outside of the group are experiencing.

This isn't inherently a bad thing. But among those who lack critical thinking skills, it can lead to some real trouble if they conclude that their similar experiences means that they're uncovering an actual objective truth, regardless of whether it's congruent with anything anyone outside of the group is experiencing.

One thing that many people fail to account for is the fact that they and their group generally share many of the same preconceptions and biases. For example, a group of younger Wiccans are very likely to believe in now-debunked ideas such as the great goddess hypothesis and the witch cult hypothesis. They'll believe in the existence of pagan gods, but they'll probably have a Christian-influenced understanding of divinity and morality, with little to no comprehension of the role that animism played in the development of pre-Christian traditions, nor with any real appreciation for how different values influenced the stories that people told about gods and other spirits.

They might even be exposed to similar media, which gives them all similar ideas about gods, spirits, and history. Even if they don't directly engage with the most popular media, it can still reach them through second or third hand exposure.

They're also likely reading the same spiritual, occult, and esoteric writers; or at least, reading people who have very similar ideas to one another.

And finally, since they're most likely friends and therefore trust each other, they are naturally biased toward accepting each other's experiences as valid, and working them into their own mental maps of the spiritual or metaphysical world.

In short, they're all primed to have very similar experiences to each other.

Without awareness that exposure to similar ideas can influence similar mystical experiences, it's very easy for a small group like this to generate a sort of shared map of reality that they feel justified in regarding as absolutely, objectively true.

It's at this point that people begin to feel confident telling you that if you just talked to your gods about what they're claiming, your gods would absolutely confirm them to be true. And if they don't, you were never really talking to those gods.

Having one's entire internal map of reality dictated by Personal Group Gnosis can be incredibly dangerous. It alienates you from the rest of the world by making you feel as if the only people you can trust are those who agree with your PGG. It can make you see outsiders as spiritually inferior, especially if they disagree with you outright. It can even encourage conspiracy thinking, because attributing what outsiders believe (or apparently believe) to the actions of a malicious conspiracy is a very common rationalization.

In other words, this is how you get a cult.

Now, a lot of people won't recognize it as a cult (and some will vehemently deny it's a cult) because it might not have a clear leader (though there's almost certainly a small number of people who have the most influence), and it probably doesn't have a financial goal. However, the destructive capacities of small groups of people living in their own reality cannot be denied. Members who don't go along with the group's accepted model of reality are often treated harshly, and are frequently targets for harassment. They may say that if you don't like it you can just leave, but let's be real, that's no simple matter if you believe that these are the only people with a real grip on reality, or if these people are basically your only friends, or even just your only friends who share your spiritual beliefs.

(If you're in this kind of situation? My advice is to start making more friends outside of this group. You don't have to cut yourself off from this group cold turkey; you can just start hanging out with other people more.)

Now, I'd like to emphasize that none of this is to say that PGG is inherently bad; I am only pointing out that it can be incredibly dangerous for people who lack knowledge, perspective, and critical thinking skills. Additionally, a group where there's a lot of this going on can be very dangerous for those who desperately just want to belong and get along, and push themselves to adopt their groups popular beliefs for fear of consequences.

Just like a single person's UPG doesn't dictate reality for everyone, neither does a single group's gnosis. PGG isn't inherently any better or more "correct" than UPG.

#gnosis #personal gnosis #upg #unverified personal gnosis #pgg #personal group gnosis #witchcraft #spiriuality #deity work #occult #occultism #esoteric #esotericism #magic #conspiracism #conspirituality

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

[Text: Tell me, what do you think of people actually liking the character development in season 4-5 and the show's treatment of mental health? [Redacted] thinks that and she's the mother of a teenager]

Re liking the show: I generally assume that they have poor taste and/or media literacy.

Re the mental health rep: I generally assume that they're incredibly privileged and/or ignorant.

I'm posting this as an image and not an ask response specifically because I will not participate in fandom drama or shaming. This blog exists specifically so that people can actively choose to engage in my content and so that I can post critical thoughts without dragging their source into some petty fight. So I'm not going to talk about the named individual. Instead, I'll replace them with the show's head writer and talk about him in a similar context.*

He's pretty famously denied that Chloe suffered any abuse, ignoring her obvious neglect, which came from both parents, just in different forms. When you pair that with how the show handles people like Gabe and Jagged Stone, we see a clear pattern of the show ignoring the devastating effects that abandonment and neglect can have on a person, especially if they're a child.

Now you could look at that and say, "The head writer condones abuse! He's a monster!" But I prefer to go the more likely route and assume that he's a privileged middle-class cis white man who has never had to deal with those issues or support someone who has, so he has no idea how to handle them properly or that they even need to be properly handled. There's every chance that he's a loving, kind man and a fantastic father who just happens to not be very good at writing a complex topic that he clearly has no understanding of or desire to learn about. I apply similar logic to fans who share his opinions. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence or ignorance.

And all of the above is assuming that we're talking about someone who thinks that the show is objectively good or that the mental health rep is good, which are big assumptions. It's fully possible to enjoy a piece of media that you know is objectively bad or even "problematic" in some way.

Personal confession time: is Loonatics Unleashed an objectively terrible show that you should never, ever watch? Absolutely. 100%. Are Rev Runner and Tech E. Coyote two of my favorite characters who will live rent free in my head until the day I die? Yep! I pulled up a YouTube highlight real as I was writing this and those dorks still make me smile even though the show is terrible on multiple levels and I know that I'm not alone in that sentiment. Those two clicked with a lot of people for some reason.

A piece of fiction need not be good for you to love it and you don't need to justify your love for a piece of fiction if you're not claiming that it's good. Similarly, people hating that piece of fiction or pointing out flaws in it is not a reflection on you in any way shape or form. You can even agree with their criticism and still love the piece of fiction. This approach to media - loving a thing in spite of its flaws - is normal and healthy and I'd really love to see it make a comeback in younger fandoms.

Like, I cannot emphasize this enough, most fandoms consider it perfectly normal to have lots of fans who are critical of the source or who have even lost interest in the source for one reason or another, but they still like some element of the source enough to want to create/consume fan content for it. These more critical fans arguably make some of the best fan content because looking at canon and saying "That's nice, let me show you how I'd do it" often leads to some of the most complex stories that you'll see in fandom spaces. Stories that can often blow canon out of the water for TV shows and movies since fanfic isn't limited by budgets or studio policies or marketability concerns. Fans who think that the source is perfect tend to just write fluff or romcom type fics, which is not a dig! I love bother of those genres! But woman does not live on fluff alone.

Obviously there's some complexity here because who decides if a show is bad? Saying "it's okay that you like a terrible thing" can certainly sound like an insult and prompt a feeling of needing to defend the thing, which is why I don't fight with fans who like the show. There's really no need to convince them that the thing they like is bad. Do I think it is? Yes. Does it matter if they disagree? No, not really. At worst, they create stories with similar issues and, well, they're not the only ones and fighting with them isn't going to stop them. You're much better off focusing on creating your own good media and trying to get that popular. Heck, even if you made the head writer see all of Miracuous' flaws, it wouldn't change anything. The show is already made.

So, yeah, I don't really assume anything bad about people who think that miraculous is good. I know lots of wonderful people who have terrible taste in media and I'm still friends with them. I just don't take recommendations from them.

It's important to remember that, when you're online in a fandom space, a person is condensed down to a very tiny snapshot of who they are and judging a person solely off of their thoughts regarding a poorly written kids show is a dangerous path to tread. Like, looking at this blog, you might assume that I spend all of my time thinking about miraculous and obsessing over its flaws, which is very much not the case. I actually have this blog specifically so that I don't obsess over miraculous' flaws because I've found that, when something is bothering me, writing it down or talking to someone about it is the best way to stop thinking about it. Even then, most of my posts are reblogs of stuff I come across while browsing my tumblr feed, which is not solely miraculous content. I mostly interact with the show by creating non-salty fanfic that I honestly enjoy writing and find to be a relaxing, positive outlet.

It's human nature to judge and it's totally normal to think that a person's an idiot because of something they post online, but be careful to not lean into those thoughts too hard. At the end of the day, Miraculous is just a stupid kids show that will fade from the popular consciousness a few years after it stops airing. If it and/or the fandom are negatively affecting your mental health, then it's okay to step away for a while or use the block button. It really is your best friend. I enjoy being critical about Miraculous specifically because it's not that important. While I do think that kids deserve better media, I don't think Miraculous is some terrible evil harming the youth. I'm not horrified when a kid watches it, it's just not a show that I'd encourage them to watch and, if the kids was close to me, we'd spend a lot of time talking about the bad things that the show showcases from time to time. There are lots of episodes that are fine and I can think of way worse kids shows. Shows that tell their horrifying morals really well, making a kid far more likely to pick up on them and internalize them.

*Note that I only feel comfortable talking about the head writer like this because he's a public figure with an active social media presence AND because I'm not @ing him. If he was a private person or if he was not a professional creator, then I would not talk about him like this and even in that context I try to avoid it whenever I can. You can think that he's a terrible writer, but he's still a human being and, as far as I'm aware, nothing he's done deserves people harassing him.

I absolutely understand how devastating it can be to see a story you love get ruined by the creative team. The first time that happened to me, the life lesson I came away with was, "I will no longer put my happiness in the hands of another creator. I will enjoy stories, but I will temper my expectations and remember that they're just another human being and it's completely possible that their vision for this seemingly awesome story may end up being terrible."

#ml writing salt #ml writing critical #ml fandom salt #fandom salt #ask response